Financial Post = Zombie Host

The Financial Post is the stupid-wing of the National Post. The NatPo manages to publish some actual news, while the Financial Post publishes misinformation that is there simply to anger and confuse people. That’s why I’m angry about their latest hyping of a stunt by climate change deniers like Tim Ball. (

This came on a day when we learned that visible scientific evidence shows the Arctic is melting at a terrifying rate.
April Aurora

Scientists have definitive new evidence that shows all but one of the world’s major ice sheets are shrinking.

The study, which will be published in the magazine Science on Friday, marks the first time scientists have come up with a way to measure the changing size of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica that they can all agree on.

Clearly one group is lying or horribly mistaken. Anyone with the Internet is fully capable of looking at modern photos of places on earth that should be well frozen, but are not. There’s no good excuse for choosing Ball and his ilk of liars out to delay serious actions that drastically cut air pollution.

We have four years left to make the right choices, but probably less than that if we want to preserve the sort of future we envisioned for ourselves just short years ago.

What are some concrete actions that can change this situation? Stop buying the National/Financial Post until they start characterizing Ball, Heartland, and other misinformation peddlers as the Eco-terrorists that they are. It’s fundamentally wrong for the Conservative government to insinuate that David Suzuki is some sort of Eco-terrorist, and not be labeled that themselves. Tell your family about the seriousness of the situation, and that they need to start putting the needs of others on their agenda.

Let’s quickly examine why it may be time to call the Conservatives Eco-terrorists. What does a terrorist do… instill terror in a population through violent destruction/killing. “Eco” is short for ecology, the study of our home, the earth. Eco-terrorists cause terror among people concerned about the study and understanding of our environment on Earth. The accepted meaning is to negatively label people who use violent actions against the state and corporations whom the ‘Eco-terrorist’ views as harming our natural environment.

With Peter “POS” Kent’s admission lately that, “We would ignore [climate change] at our peril,” he’s conceded that the Conservatives’ ignorance of climate change imperils Canadians. Canadians who are imperiled, tend to be fearful, even terrorized if helpless. When the state is the force allowing the imperilment, refusing to stop it, that’s a bad , helpless feeling.

So who, on a grand scale, imperils the homes and lives of Canadians; The Conservatives, or David Suzuki and so called “Eco-terrorists” who are taking peaceful, but firm action to delay and prevent pollution encouraged by the Conservatives?


23 responses to “Financial Post = Zombie Host

  1. My family and friends think I’m an ultra-left crazy. They laugh at my concerns. Fifty years ago I lost a high school debate based on Rachel Carson’s book and nothing seems to have changed since then in the public’s perception. My family is currently out shopping. They don’t really need anything but the illusory comfort of buying ‘things’. They waste their money and accelerate global climate change by flying south for vacations. How do we convince them that they are the problem without them shutting our voices out?

    • Don’t ask me, I speak a different language from them too. I get why they like vacations, and even shopping: It’s how we do things around here. Many of them don’t want to accept that it may need to be another way, and they can still have a good time too.

  2. Too many Canadians like their credit cards. Sheep only interested in eating and crapping. Trying to have an intelligent conversation with some of them is not possible. They like their fantasy world and will stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalal at any threat to this fantasy world. Programming fully complete.

  3. If the arctic is “melting at a terrifying rate” because of mankind why does the latest issue of Geophysical Research Letters Vol 39, L23705, 5 PP., 2012

    “This study investigates the statistical significance of the trends of station temperature time series from the European Climate Assessment & Data archive poleward of 60°N. The trends are identified by different methods and their significance is assessed by three different null models of climate noise. All stations show a warming trend but only 17 out of the 109 considered stations have trends which cannot be explained as arising from intrinsic climate fluctuations when tested against any of the three null models. Out of those 17, only one station exhibits a warming trend which is significant against all three null models. The stations with significant warming trends are located mainly in Scandinavia and Iceland.”

    Seems that peer review says the heating is over 99% natural.

    • Yeah, if you cherry pick from 1% of the science being done on the topic. Then years later, or earlier, the 1%’s errors (or worse, intentional bias) are spotted, and not enough people are paying attention then to have their faces turn red with shame.

  4. “We have only FOUR years left to make the right choices” the doomsayers profitsize, those who disagree are no more than an “ilk of liars”?

    So what do the profit$ $ay…?

    2006 “Last chance to save the world” dubya dubya dubya dot

    2007 “World leaders will converge on Bali today for the start of negotiations which experts say could be the last chance to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change.” dubya dubya dubya dot

    2008 “Humanity is approaching the last chance to prevent catastrophic climate change, according to WWF’s analysis of the latest climate science.” dubya dubya dubya dot

    2009 “The Copenhagen summit is the world’s last chance to save the planet from “catastrophic” global warming” dubya dubya dubya dot

    2011 “The window to limit global warming to less than two degrees C is closing so fast it can be measured in months, a new scientific analysis revealed Sunday.” dubya dubya dubya dot

    In all honesty, are you guys still falling for this globull warming tripe?

    PS… Note that with all these ‘last chances’ the global temperature anomoly hasn’t changed in 16 years.–chart-prove-it.html “The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.”

    Leftism… just 16 years behind the ball… so far.

    • Resorting to a Daily Pail link to ‘prove’ your point shows how desperate you are. Did you want to prove there have been alien landings too? Bet you can find a source at the Daily Mail.

      • Actually the data is from HADCRU 4. Hadley Centre Climatic Research Unit iteration 4. Home of Professor Phil Jones. One of 4 world temperature data bank repositories. This is ALARMIST data, confirmed by Richard Muller, that doesn’t get reported. The ‘Pail simply publicized the Inconvenient Truth. The results were confirmed at Doha if anyone cares to see for themselves.

        Professor Phil Jones also said 3 years ago that this observed pause was not statistically significant as it had only been 13 years of data. He was right, the observed data was not enough then to mathematically judge. It is now 3 years on and the math does allow statistical significance. In fairness Phil does say, 3 years on, now that “15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.”. Wow, talk about ‘shifting the goal posts’!!!!!!! Why is it that with EVERY climate prognostication that doesn’t come TRUE that we, the ignorant public, are told “It’s WORSE than we thought”? Is your world so wrapped in computers that, along with the Pope, they have become infallible?

        Are you denying the facts?

        As for the alien landings, are you refering to the Lewandowsky survey of alarmist sites asking their impression of climate ‘deniers’? Har har, they completely agreed with you… who’d-a-thunk-it? Funny how 10 joke responses can taint a result sooooo badly!!! Then again, what do you expect when the liberal arts ventures into math!

        PS… did Mr Lew’s paper ever get published? I know it’s been held up… in ‘moderation’? Har har!!!

      • If further proof is needed I would recomend this National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2008 document… before the goalposts were moved… Specifically the second blue page after S19

        “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

        Math is indeed hard.

    • Is someone paying you. redjeff, to close your eyes? Are you so sure of yourself that you’d bet there’s no problem? Maybe you’re confused by the math or are too young to have directly experienced the environmental changes. For whatever reasons, you have become a major contributor to an avoidable calamity and you should be ashamed of yourself.

      • I haven’t ruled out the possibility that RedJefff is paid off or is simply in an industry he feels is threatened by action on pollution, but my guess is that he simply picked the nasty side and feels it’s an itellectual pursuit to scrape up whatever dregs of denialism he can find which sound most plausible, and use them to make his failed/failing choices feel better.

      • Hi Al! Is someone paying me? No Al, I have no income. Admittedly I am poor at statistical math. I am excellent at chemistry (my old work field) physics and the other mathematical branches. I’m also a poor speller.

        That said, can you tell me what is wrong with the NOAA math?

        Perhaps you can help me also, can you tell me the direct environmental changes you yourself have experienced? I have yet to see any.

        As for nasty, nasty is pushing expensive ‘renewable’ energy sources like solar and wind on the working poor making their lives MORE expensive, while enriching the upper middle class by paying them to do it!!!!!! Seriously, look for yourself, use your OWN eyes in your OWN neighbourhoods… do you see the ummmmmm, less wealthy with these arrays?

        Unconscionable is driving it on the third world where absolute poverty is a reality.

      • More frequently it is the non-wealthy who have solar arrays, in SK at least. The “clean energy” university has 0 solar panels, while private citizens have put up the thousands of dollars for their own panels and contribute to the Sask Research Council.

        You like to claim the renewables hurt the poor, but most poor people bemoan their $1000 electricity bills for heating, not fuel-free heat sources. Your view is so short term, it’s ridiculous.

        As for you being good at chemistry, you really have no excuse for not understanding climate change. You should recognize the impact that adding greenhouse gases has on a closed environment.

        As for the NOAA report, maybe you missed the first sentence:
        “The global mean temperature in 2008 was slightly cooler than that in 2007; however, it still ranks within the 10 warmest years on record.”

      • As much as it hurts you to admit it, the poor are NOT putting up renewable energy sources in their apartments or rented homes. Your OWN pictures on Flikr is clear proof of that! Those folks don’t look like they’re hurtin’ for money. Think about what you’re saying for just a second… “private citizens have put up the thousands of dollars for their own panels”… how many of the poor have these “thousands of dollars” you talk of? Certainly not the folk I know who are scratching to make ends meet. Perhaps they don’t have government jobs. You must be aware that it takes a great deal more than “thousands of dollars” to start up a system!!!

        Here in Ontario we heat or homes with natural gas, not electricity. Electricity is the least cost efficient of heating methods. The same is true for your province of Saskatchewan. About 85% of Saskatchewan homes use a forced air furnace powered by gas. It should also be noted that electricity costs are (according to statscan) twice what natural gas costs are. Statscan also says that the average Canadian houshold electric costs were $1400 in 2007. You should try to make your wild guess costs at least a tad accurate. Short term ridiculous an’ all !!!!! ;)

        Also, could you tell me what a “fuel free heat source” is? That’s a first for me!!!!!

        As for the ten warmest years on record, I know Mikey Mann missed it but we ARE coming out of our Little Ice Age still!!!

      • I’m giving you real-world examples RedJefff, I know someone with a $1000 electricity bill, and they are among the working poor.
        I have no photos of mansions with renewable power generation. The people doing it here are among the 99% (and as you know, the middle class in Canada is still vastly more wealthy than the 99% elsewhere in most of the world).

      • Real-world examples?????? Let’e do the math… $1000/month would mean that your buddy would need to earn $120,000 NOT to be officially in fuel poverty (10% of net income). $1000/yr would be $83/month… I’d take that bill!!!!

        As opposed to taking your buddy at the malls word for it, lets use real real-world examples. These real people, pensioners, invested about $100,000 in their solar systems. Where would the poor get that $100,000? Next, Ontario Power Authority approved the renewable systems but Hydro One couldn’t hook them up to the aging and overburdened grid!!! Over 3000 projects await hook-up stretching back years.

        Why would pensioners invest in such a scheme? “It seemed like a wise investment, as safe as a GIC but with a much better, government-backed rate of return – 11 per cent or so.”. Yup, 11% government guaranteed return. Wonder who’s on the hook for that 11% profit? Your neighbours, that’s who.

        Perhaps you can tell your friend to invest in solar. A $100,000+ solar investment will pay for itself in about 8 years at $12,000 savings per year. Unless the power cost is not inclusive of summer reduced bills, then it would take 16 years. On the other hand, forcing your neighbours to buy it at $0.82/kWh instead of paying out of pocket $0.17/kWh would pay for it in less than 2 years!!!!

        Note- the last paragraphs costs are not accurate, they do show the financial trends however.

      • I never said “per month”, you inferred. Of course it’s not consistently that high. Actual readings only come in every few months here, unless the user reads the meter themselves.

        Go ahead and waste your time proving reality doesn’t exist, using your “conservative dark arts” math.

      • And the $100,000 put up financially by the poor? The government-backed rate of return 11%?

        This isn’t dark arts math, this is reality. You may not want to face it but it but you are going to have to pay for it. The rural people who have to put up with this have been stripped of their municiple power to stop renewable development. The ONLY type of development, incidently, which has the protection of law to do so. Even on environmentally sensitive grounds.

        Interestingly, the safety guidelines put in place to protect urban residents are twice as stringent as those in place to protect rural ones, regarding sound levels and distances. Distances that prohibit urban renewable development in the first place.

        Ah well, I’m sure the farmers in Saskatchewan won’t mind. Did I mention the neccissary hydro tower grids that don’t exist right now? Next time then.

  5. “Limited preliminary data imply that in 2008 glaciers continued to lose mass, and full data for 2007 show it was the 17th consecutive year of loss.” From Redjefff’s link, which he tries to claim bolsters his denialism.

    • Actually the Himalayan ones are growing, as well as the Antarctic. The Antarctic actually has a record amount of ice! The Himalayan glaciers are actually growing too!!!! Seems the lazy glaciologists couldn’t be bothered climing up to see what was going on at higher altitudes and instead extrapolated their results all the way up the vally!!! They weren’t aware that temperature drops with altitude!!!! That the glaciers were in fact growing at higher elevations!!! Who-da-thunk-it???

      Oh, and Kilimanjaro? Ice loss due to surrounding land use… poor people clearing land for farming and food. Who do these peasants think they are, disturbing our tourist view for food for their families. Obviously Conservatives.

      Canada’s high arctic is shrinking… 150 year short term trend and 10,000 year long term trend.

      Unless you’re denying climate change!! ;)

    • Duh, some local ones grow, but overall it’s a melt, which is what the sentence says.

      Funny that some would be “growing”… almost as if they are ‘changing’.

      And you admit human activity can have an affect on ice? A breakthrough. It’s not the “tourists” who have to worry about fresh water supply in the area, or the canary on the mountain top.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s